Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 236 posts

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#41

Post by pipio21 »

wheaties wrote: post #8

If I want to keep my communications encrypted online, I'm going to do so. The only people who won't have the same luxury as me are those that follow the law. I don't get it.

You think so?

If the computer that you are using right now, like an Ipad, or a PC with intel inside, has the ability to be remotely controlled, like it has with Intel ME, or Apple(for use when someone steals an Iphone...), and the law mandates that they can access this service, then you can't keep ANYTHING encrypted.

It is worse than not encrypting it, because you believe it is encrypted, when it is not. Technically it is, but they can read the key transparently without you noticing.

Those services can access all the computer(the entire RAM and disk, all the processors) and have privileges over your applications and even the OS.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#42

Post by twilightfog »

tetrep wrote: post #24

I think this same logic that is purportedly the reasoning behind this bill would also require us to constantly record all of our vocal communications, as that would be the only way we could ensure that criminals could not have communications that aren't accessible to law enforcement. This, of course, would require microphones on all citizens as well as many more in the surrounding environment, to ensure communication…

Subject to strong controls and safeguards to address the increasing technical sophistication of those who would seek to do us harm.

Ofcourse we all know the strong controls and safeguards there will be:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/06/letters-lack...

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#43

Post by ythl »

sklivvz1971 wrote: post #6

It's such a pointless war on its own law-abiding citizens. It makes me sad. People that really care about privacy, people who need to hide what they do will not be majorly impacted. * The main threat is metadata anyways, not the data itself. Locating where you are (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition) is a much worse threat. * They will still use full disk encryption, free software, PGP or AES, etc.…

> It's such a pointless war on its own law-abiding citizens.

Governments will always wage war on law abiding citizens, taking away freedoms in exchange for securities until the citizens are secure but no longer free.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#44

Post by bitwize »

tomjen3 wrote: post #25
superuser2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If encrypted communications are illegal, then anyone using them is an automatic target for investigation and the encryption itself may be probable cause to open up their lives and property. It's considerably more difficult to conceal the fact of encryption on the wire than (say) a gun in your home.

Ciphertext is supposed to be impossible to distinquis from random noise, so how are they going to prove I am not just sending random noise, with a PGP header? As for asking why I would do such a thing? I think the law is wrong and want to make the court waste their time.

No one would actually send random noise as a message, so the law would assume that comnunications which look like random noise are, prima facie, encrypted comms and something the police have a right to see in cleartext.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#45

Post by flyinghamster »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #10
fweespeech wrote: post #2

Has the UK lost their god damned minds? I'm sorry but between this and everything else lately...they seem pretty committed to "Security at any economic and/or personal cost! Security for everyone!" In the real world, that never works.

I don't think it's to do with people 'losing their minds'. The weird thing about bills like this, or really anything effecting privacy/IT security, is that no matter how bad it is the general public have no idea it's happening. The number of people I've spoken to who know nothing about Snowden/PRISM etc despite it being front page news for months shocks me. That basically means that it's up to a small group of people…

For a long time, people who are concerned about online security and privacy have been derided as paranoid, tinfoil-hat-wearing kooks.

Not only that, but it seems to me that there's been far less coverage of these issues in mainstream media than in the tech press, and most mainstream coverage seems to take the governments' side. People who get most or all of their news from TV likely won't hear anything about all this; if they do, their eyes will glaze over as they don't have a clue how encryption works, or why it's important. Or, it will just vanish in the news cycle and they never think about it again.

Edit: It also seems to me that most people just aren't going to care unless it directly affects them, at which time it's already far too late.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#46

Post by probably_wrong »

sklivvz1971 wrote: post #6

It's such a pointless war on its own law-abiding citizens. It makes me sad. People that really care about privacy, people who need to hide what they do will not be majorly impacted. * The main threat is metadata anyways, not the data itself. Locating where you are (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition) is a much worse threat. * They will still use full disk encryption, free software, PGP or AES, etc.…

> They will still use full disk encryption, free software, PGP or AES, etc. outside of the affected apps. That software won't stop to exist

"Dangerous hacker arrested, found in possession of illegal hacking tools. An unnamed officer said 'we couldn't have done it without our metadata analysis'"

If the tools for encrypting your data are illegal, they dont need to decrypt your data anymore.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#47

Post by Spivak »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #23

Dear UK government, Good luck with that. Signed, An open source software developer outside your jurisdiction

I mean they're just going to fine/jail anyone within their jurisdiction that uses your software. Pretending that you can't ban encryption because you can't eliminate its availability is silly.

This is a political problem that must have a political solution.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#48

Post by nine_k »

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #13
sklivvz1971 wrote: post #6

It's such a pointless war on its own law-abiding citizens. It makes me sad. People that really care about privacy, people who need to hide what they do will not be majorly impacted. * The main threat is metadata anyways, not the data itself. Locating where you are (e.g. with millions of cameras and facial recognition) is a much worse threat. * They will still use full disk encryption, free software, PGP or AES, etc.…

> TLDR: useless and damaging. You are assuming security against terrorism etc. was the main goal. I think that's completely not the case. There are no facts that support that mass-surveillance or measures compromising encryption have ever been effective at saving lives.

How about illegal drugs trade? Well, literally anything, including planning a murder or even a burglary. Noble goals, aren't they?

And, of course, political insurgency, mass disobeyance, etc, etc — just as a side effect.

What the powers that be try to sell us is security without compromises. Security above all, no matter the price (as long as it makes the powers more powerful). I think there is a real value in lower security, when civil rights and mere privacy of millions of people are put above the police's ability so solve a particular crime. You see, keeping everyone in a max security prison would be most efficient in thwarting any crime at all, but we're not doing that, at least yet, at the expense of some crimes being committed. The society already demonstrates that this compromise is acceptable. But the power always tends to push the other way.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#49

Post by CiPHPerCoder »

Spivak wrote: post #47
CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #23

Dear UK government, Good luck with that. Signed, An open source software developer outside your jurisdiction

I mean they're just going to fine/jail anyone within their jurisdiction that uses your software. Pretending that you can't ban encryption because you can't eliminate its availability is silly. This is a political problem that must have a political solution.

The only effective political solution is to get the common person in on using end-to-end encryption so its ban becomes unpopular.

Re: UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end encryption

#50

Post by nine_k »

superuser2 wrote: post #15
wheaties wrote: post #8

If I want to keep my communications encrypted online, I'm going to do so. The only people who won't have the same luxury as me are those that follow the law. I don't get it.

If encrypted communications are illegal, then anyone using them is an automatic target for investigation and the encryption itself may be probable cause to open up their lives and property. It's considerably more difficult to conceal the fact of encryption on the wire than (say) a gun in your home.

This depends on the amount of communication. Steganography can attach a noise-like information stream to another, innocent stream, like a stream from a webcam constantly scanning one's backyard "for security purposes".

It's a whack-a-mole problem, and the moles always have a pretty fair chance.

This, of course, keeps the encryption in the hands of the technically savvy and motivated few, while the majority will have to use security with backdoors, and possibly other holes, for the convenience of the snooping by the government and online thieves alike.

Post reply on HN